Bits and Pieces

[Puffer]

Some interesting - and quite diverse - comments above on what is truly a 'high' heel.   Imho, it much depends on what alternative descriptions are recognised; is the contrast between 'high' and 'flat' or should one take into account 'low', 'mid' etc?   

On the basis that almost all footwear has an element of 'rise' at the heel (either a thickening to the sole at the rear or an added separate layer, likely to measure 1/2" or so as a minimum) and this is regarded as the benchmark, anything higher than that could rightly be regarded as a 'high' heel.   (I would opt, reluctantly, for that definition.)   And many 'conventional' shoes (particularly those intended for men) have a fairly sturdy heel block of around 1" in height and certainly attract no special attention - but if that same block heel goes to 1.5" or more, it would be described by many people as a 'high' heel, even though very modest.

To some extent, the shoe style and heel shape is relevant in practice.   A kitten heel (i.e. a stiletto of typically less than 2") is widely regarded as a 'high' heel, but a 2" or 2.5" wide block heel would simply be looked on as 'chunky' rather than high.   I don't think that any platform changes this; if a shoe with a flat sole and a 2" heel is described as 'high', then the same shoe with a 1" platform sole is just as high in terms of its heel - even though the rise is halved it is still a rise.   A 'flatform' shoe is not an exception either; it is really a flat or almost flat shoe given an extra thick sole, and is not a 'high' heel as there is (almost) no rise to the foot.

    

[mlroseplant]

40 minutes ago, Puffer said:

Some interesting - and quite diverse - comments above on what is truly a 'high' heel.   Imho, it much depends on what alternative descriptions are recognised; is the contrast between 'high' and 'flat' or should one take into account 'low', 'mid' etc?   

On the basis that almost all footwear has an element of 'rise' at the heel (either a thickening to the sole at the rear or an added separate layer, likely to measure 1/2" or so as a minimum) and this is regarded as the benchmark, anything higher than that could rightly be regarded as a 'high' heel.   (I would opt, reluctantly, for that definition.)   And many 'conventional' shoes (particularly those intended for men) have a fairly sturdy heel block of around 1" in height and certainly attract no special attention - but if that same block heel goes to 1.5" or more, it would be described by many people as a 'high' heel, even though very modest.

To some extent, the shoe style and heel shape is relevant in practice.   A kitten heel (i.e. a stiletto of typically less than 2") is widely regarded as a 'high' heel, but a 2" or 2.5" wide block heel would simply be looked on as 'chunky' rather than high.   I don't think that any platform changes this; if a shoe with a flat sole and a 2" heel is described as 'high', then the same shoe with a 1" platform sole is just as high in terms of its heel - even though the rise is halved it is still a rise.   A 'flatform' shoe is not an exception either; it is really a flat or almost flat shoe given an extra thick sole, and is not a 'high' heel as there is (almost) no rise to the foot.

    

Oddly enough, in the sports shoe industry, they refer to a perfectly flat shoe as "zero drop," which seems completely backward to me. Shouldn't it be "zero rise?" They can be a flatform, and often do have a bit of a thick sole, but then there's "zero drop, zero cushioning" shoes, otherwise known as barefoot shoes. I have a couple of pairs of sandals that are that way, if you don't count the 2mm top piece stuck on the back of the leather sole for durability. I find cushioning to be overrated.

[Shyheels]

I quite agree - any rise above the standard half inch or so could rightly be called high heels  - although I also think you would need to be approaching two inches before eyebrows started to be raised (if you’re a guy) and the term “high heels”, in its feminine context, would start to be applied. By three inches you’re definitely in heels!

Good point about the style of heels - a two inch kitten heel is definitely “high heels”

A cowboy boot of similar heel height would pass muster

itd quite an interesting study in aesthetics, fashion and taboo

[Puffer]

20 minutes ago, Shyheels said:

I quite agree - any rise above the standard half inch or so could rightly be called high heels  - although I also think you would need to be approaching two inches before eyebrows started to be raised (if you’re a guy) and the term “high heels”, in its feminine context, would start to be applied. By three inches you’re definitely in heels!

Good point about the style of heels - a two inch kitten heel is definitely “high heels”

A cowboy boot of similar heel height would pass muster

itd quite an interesting study in aesthetics, fashion and taboo

I agree weith 2"; I wasn't meaning to suggest otherwise.   I have three pairs of men's boots with Cuban heels of around 2.6", which I certainly consider to be 'high heels' (and have been described as such by others, albeit not in a censorious way).   I have a similar pair with heels of 1.4" which neither I nor anyone else has said to be 'high', and I come to the same conclusion as you that 2" is probably the borderline, at least for a man presenting as such.  I don't really feel that I am in 'borrowed territory' until I go above 3" in a block/Cuban/cowboy heel - my avatar boots (2 7/8") go unnoticed when worn under normal jeans.

[Shyheels]

I think if I wore my 3” ankle boots with boot cut jeans they’d go unnoticed - but with skinny jeans their heels and feminine styling are quite apparent. There re does seem to be some overlapping areas, especially with block heels 

[mlroseplant]

I am definitely jaded, but I've worked very hard to get to that point. In my own head, and by my own personal definition, anything less than 2 inches is a flat. Having said that, I can still feel a definite difference between the way a completely flat shoe "walks" and the way a 2 inch heel "walks," even though I can't really feel any sort of heel at a mere 2 inches. In fact, I really can't feel much of anything until I get to 3 1/2, which to me is squarely a mid-heel.

I have never had anybody explain to me clearly exactly how any why these "mid-heels" hurt, and how  it's not possible to wear them for more than a short period of time. I can sort of remember when I was at that point in 2013, when I wore 4 inch boots to the mall and almost didn't make it back to the car, and again in 2017, which was my first entire weekend continuously wearing high heels. And somehow I have managed to get over that hump, and I think it's been from walking. I do not know if this method would work for everybody. I still almost don't believe my friend when she says every time she wears her 2 inch block-heeled ankle boots to work on the sales floor, she regrets it within a couple of hours. I wish I knew why that was, and if there was anything I could do to help.

[Puffer]

1 hour ago, mlroseplant said:

I am definitely jaded, but I've worked very hard to get to that point. In my own head, and by my own personal definition, anything less than 2 inches is a flat. ...

We seem to be divided into two camps: those who consider 'high' to be an indicator of a more-than-minimal rise at the heel, and those who regard a 'high' heel as one that makes a detectable (but inevitably subjective) difference to feeling or gait when worn.   There is nothing empirical to either view and perhaps we should leave it to lay people to decide (usually wrongly) what is, to them, a 'high' heel; each of us knows better!   After all, we don't take much notice of laiety (especially if unbelievers) when it comes to heel heights or indeed shoe or other fashions in general.

[Shyheels]

I think there is a figurative “high” and a literal “high” and they are not the same. From what I’ve read in the fashion magazines high heels start at 4”. But if you’re a guy wearing anything over two inches with even a hint of feminine styling you’ll be “accused” of wearing high heels. 
 

I too fail to understand how anybody can have troubles wearing three inch (usually block) heels, find them painful and intolerable to walk in after a couple of hours. I just don’t understand 

[mlroseplant]

In the end, I think the reason we are so good at it is because we really want it, and want it in a way that very few women do. I have no idea what must go through a 8 year old girl's mind when she's begging her mother to let her wear heels. Something then happens in the subsequent couple of decades, and by the time that girl gets to be 28 years old, the bloom is off the rose and those strong desires are pretty much gone, other than wistful thinking. Why doesn't this happen to us? I can't imagine there's a man among us, absent traumatic injury, who will wake up one day and say, "I just can't wear heels anymore."

[Puffer]

48 minutes ago, mlroseplant said:

In the end, I think the reason we are so good at it is because we really want it, and want it in a way that very few women do. I have no idea what must go through a 8 year old girl's mind when she's begging her mother to let her wear heels. Something then happens in the subsequent couple of decades, and by the time that girl gets to be 28 years old, the bloom is off the rose and those strong desires are pretty much gone, other than wistful thinking. Why doesn't this happen to us? I can't imagine there's a man among us, absent traumatic injury, who will wake up one day and say, "I just can't wear heels anymore."

In two words: 'forbidden fruit'.

[Shyheels]

37 minutes ago, Puffer said:

In two words: 'forbidden fruit'.

Precisely! There will always be that allure, that frisson of tension about breaking ranks and going your own way, making a statement. There is absolutely no expectation that we should or will wear heels as there is with women - quite the contrary - and so the excitement stays fresh 

[Aly]

20 hours ago, Shyheels said:

I too fail to understand how anybody can have troubles wearing three inch (usually block) heels, find them painful and intolerable to walk in after a couple of hours. I just don’t understand 

Part ofthe reason might be "vanity" - many women just can't accept the fact that they wear a certain size. "Queen size pantyhose is for fat people, and I'm not fat!"; "I'm not a "Large" - I wear "Small""; "No way my feet are size 10 - I've always worn size 8"

Men, on the other hand, tend to value comfort more, it seems. Sizes are just a number rather than an identity.

[Cali]

Also wearing certain shoes makes womens feet change and the lack of muscle tone does not allow 'her' to stand too long in heels. If you don't use it, you lose it.

Edited October 8 by Cali

[mlroseplant]

20 hours ago, Aly said:

Part ofthe reason might be "vanity" - many women just can't accept the fact that they wear a certain size. "Queen size pantyhose is for fat people, and I'm not fat!"; "I'm not a "Large" - I wear "Small""; "No way my feet are size 10 - I've always worn size 8"

Men, on the other hand, tend to value comfort more, it seems. Sizes are just a number rather than an identity.

I think that is a thing that is fading with time. I knew a lot of older ladies who didn't like their size number to be too high, but I've never known a young woman who cares at all. The most hilarious thing about it is, it's not like the size is stamped on your forehead. Who would ever know whether you wore a size 4 or size 10 dress?

17 hours ago, Cali said:

Also wearing certain shoes makes womens feet change and the lack of muscle tone does not allow 'her' to stand too long in heels. If you don't use it, you lose it.

Having had to go through a lot of physical therapy over the years has helped you, I'm sure. Since I've never had any injuries or problems that have required medical intervention, I had to invent my own physical therapy to address feet that were killing me. I've actually expanded my "physical therapy" as of late to address my achilles tendon issues. It's not a miracle cure, but it seems to be doing some good, rather than any harm.